Information regarding the presence of the total amount at Bastar Post Office etc. was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Respondent: The appellant is employed is Inspector of Posts and was charge-sheeted - CIC: Sec 8(1)(j) has been wrongly quoted instead of Sec 8(1)(h)
16 Jul, 2018ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information regarding the presence of the total amount at Bastar Post Office, the date of charging that amount to UCP etc. through 19 points. The CPIO refused to grant information in his letter dated 04.10.17 stating that this information comes under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and thus cannot be revealed. An appeal was filed with the First Appellate Authority, the reply to which was received on 21.11.17 stating that the enquiry in the matter was still ongoing and therefore information cannot be provided. The matter now rests before this Commission.
Decision :
2. The officer submitted that the appellant is employed is Inspector of Posts and appellant was charge-sheeted under Rule-16. The Commission upon perusal of records finds that the respondent authority has wrongly quoted section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. instead of section 8(1)(h). The Commission warns to be mindful henceforth and finds no reason to interfere in this matter.
Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Vikram Singh v. PIO, Department of Posts in CIC/POSTS/A/2018/113738, Date of Decision–19.06.2018